M2TW, does anyone like the original better

[Budwise]

I understand that some people haven't made the switch due to computers needing an upgrade or just stubborness on the past but I was just wondering. Does anyone here like the older version of MTW better and refuse to play the updated version? If so, why? I bought the new version and I am forever done with MTW because of that and because I own a Nvidia Card and Nvidia doesn't give a crap about compatibility anymore. So, is their any diehards that refuse to give this game up yet?

[Wasp]

Yup, me. I haven't played the new game for more than 30 minutes, but from all I've heard, the AI got worse, and that's a major turn-off for me. I don't care about graphics, so in that case, the choice is obvious.

[OldSchool]

Yeah. I guess I'm a die-hard. MTW is one of my all-time favorite games and I still play it. I bought Rome and didn't like it, so when I want to get my Total War on, I roll back my video drivers and load up good ol' MTW.

I don't see myself buying any more Total War games, but they seem to be doing just fine without me, and I'm quite happy modding and playing the one that I like, so no hard feelings on my part.

As far as why I like MTW better, I don't know how to get into that without sounding like I'm bashing the newer games, which I don't want to do. I should just say that I like the game for the tactical aspects of the battles and the strategic aspects of the campaign map. It's all about gameplay for me, and nice graphics or cool new features are just no substitute.

Of course, that's just my opinion and I'm sure there are plenty who prefer the newer games, and since I'm not allowed to have them shot, I've decided to pretend like that's a valid point of view.

[caravel]

I still play MTW from time to time, but am trying to move on to Rome. M2TW I'm not intending to get until it's been patched a few times.

[OmarPacha]

I haven't got any hardware need with MTW2, as I have a good video card that allows me to play at 1280x1024 on maximum level of detail.
This said, I've played with MTW2 two campaigns, Venetians and Russians and then I've uninstalled it.
Currently I'm playing and modding MTWVI that I find, by far, more enjoyable than the other.

Cheers

[caravel]

My PC won't run it either, I forgot to mention that. For me it'll have to wait until I can upgrade and until the game has been patched a few times. I don't want to get into this sort of situation:

[The Unknown Guy]

If I had had the hardware to run Rome (let alone MTW2), I´d have moved there straightfoward from Shogun instead of looking for a cheap offer in Ebay of MTW:VI

[Caerfanan]

I'm stuck with MTW:VI, I love too much the viks! :-)

I started a Rome campaign yesterday. The game is fairly different. I don't have a real opinion yet, but the game seems to be different... so I don't think that I'll quit MTW:VI for M2TW which looks much like Rome (but lags too much on my computer...). I guess I could be playing both...

I'm not in the "mod mood" though... I still play vanilla.

[drone]

I have M2TW, but I need to upgrade my machine to fully appreciate it, so I'm waiting for now (also want it patched as much as possible). I did not like Rome, the battles were too quick and easy, and the campaign map was just a chore to deal with. I have no problems playing MTW for a while yet, and I'm even looking into getting STW, which I never played.

[Martok]

I still prefer MTW/VI over Medieval 2. Both are fun games, but I find that Medieval 2 simply doesn't capture the atmosphere of the original. M2 actually improves on certain elements (religion being a big one); but for me at least, it lacks the same level of immersion as its predecessor.

I can sum up my experience by repeating something I originally said about Rome: MTW makes me feel like I'm actually the ruler of a medieval kingdom; Medieval 2 feels like I'm just "playing a game".

[Budwise]

Thanks for your comments. I have moved over, I just came back and checked to see what people wrote. If you enjoy the older game stay with it. Rome didn't interest me either but M2TW has got my full attention.

[Odin]

I still prefer MTW/VI over Medieval 2. Both are fun games, but I find that Medieval 2 simply doesn't capture the atmosphere of the original. M2 actually improves on certain elements (religion being a big one); but for me at least, it lacks the same level of immersion as its predecessor.

I agree with Martok, for now. Having recently converted over to MTW2 and not played RTW the curve is steep. I agree with Martok that it just dosent grab me as capturing the atmosphere.

In defence of 2, i will say that we are comparing a polished MTW VI that has the benefit of extensive patching and user feedback. MTW2 is still a teething child that has some growing pains to get through. I see through the haze a great game emerging, the religion aspect (particularly the pope) is an upgrade, and diplomacy has the potential to be potent with some tweeks to AI behavor and a user mod.

Overall the battle AI seems lag behind MTW VI (XL Mod) as its simply rare in the 7 or so battles I have played in 2 that i ever feel in real trouble. The AI isnt able to muster much in the way of quality units. Additionally, the lack of factions at start lends to land grabs and I find the AI over stretched early and it takes a concerted effort by the player to wait until the catch up. By then your churning out specialized units because you have cities specialized...

So the short answer is comparing a baby to its older brother isnt really fair until the 2nd child grows up. MTW VI with the XL mod, today, to me is a better game.

[Caliburn]

The games are very different, and both (and even Rome, not to mention Shogun) can be quite enjoyable. It's a good thing that there is really no need to choose between them, though my hardware doesn't really keep up with the battle graphics. Both are flexible when it comes to playing style but very differently. In VI there were glory goals, raking in the cash with a tiny faction and developing only a few regions, while in M2 developing trade is dirt easy, and developing other aspects of a region isn't so central (short building times, no REAL need to specialize, if you manage the income).

Spreading out and collecting new lands is the most important thing in the long run. But then again, you can butter the Pope as well as all the other factions, use Assassins in creative ways. (After the nasty Hungarians, my allies, captured Constantinople it is easy enough to sabotage all the order-enhancing buildings and maybe even the chrusader himself - wait a few turns, after standing a stack of quality troops to create more morale penalty and presto! Rebellion, and the city of cities is ready for the taking).

Great games, but I still see myself returning to MTW:VI after some 5 years, whereas I'm not so sure about M2. But that might just be nostalgia or something, like preferring Super Mario (8 bit) over whatever they have these days (not like in the good old days...)

[Ignoramus]

I agree with what Martok said. M2 just doesn't have the immersion of the original. Also, although I feel challenged in battles, they are not really of any consequence if I lose them. The AI is horrible in following up after its victories, and as such it's pretty hard to lose.

[_Aetius_]

M2TW is superior to MTW VI in all of the major aspects of the game, in terms of religion, diplomacy, trade, missions, unit rosters, in terms of how it looks it's miles ahead of MTW VI obviously, graphics aren't everything but they add so much to this kind of game as realism plays a big part.

At the same time I think they are to different to compare to much, one is 2 generations further on than the other, how can such games be compared when such leaps have been taken in the years between their releases?

VI is a great game and M2TW doesnt quite have that feeling/mood MTW VI has, but is streets ahead of the catastophe that was RTW. I always feel mods can improve a game, make it more realistic to appeal to those of us who want a specialised version of the game instead of the commercial version with appeals to everyone.

I believe mods can build on an original and make it a greater more refined more realistic experience, that should be the role of mods, they make games better but shouldnt have to make games playable like in the case of RTW. RTW vanilla is IMO totally unplayable, only with the Realism mod could I enjoy it.

M2TW is a success, because I am very happy playing it as it is, just as I did with VI, XL made it better as did BKB's super mod, but MTW VI wasnt crying out for a mod and neither is M2TW IMO.

The AI in TW games has never been particularly good AFAIK, in VI the AI trained way to many skirmisher units and used to attack my fully balanced army with little more than an army of ballistas and trebuchets. It's better in M2TW, but then M2TW stretches the AI far more than in VI so were there are gaps in the AI's capabilities they are bound to stand out far more. VI did a great job most of the time in papering over the cracks, the simplicity of the campaign map is the best example I think.

Is MTW VI better than M2TW as a game? Not by a long shot, but as an experience VI has a special significance that only Final Fantasy VII equals to me in terms of games. In pure terms though M2TW is massively superior.

[chris12345]

must admit found M2TW a real turnoff. the graphics are nice but the battle scenes arnt much better than RTW. the biggest downfall for me was the AI. the diplomacy side is an absolute nightmare which makes the gameplay very restricted. it reminds me of the old command and conquer - build a base and conquer the enemy. next level - build a base and conquer the enemy. theres no ability to use tact or cunning with M2TW AT ALL. a very poor showing that should have been released as an add-on at most for no more than £15. will be sticking to RTW and advise others to do the same.

[caravel]

Unfortunately TW made the transition to base building with the release of RTW. I have found RTW to be similarly uninspiring. I am currently on another campaign as Gaul, I found the Greek Cities campaign to be much to easy, and after giving the Thracians, Macedonians, Pontus and the Romans collectively a good hiding I've lost interest. There is one formation and one combination of units that always seems to work. Hitting the enemy sufficiently hard in a battle triggers an all out rout, even if I'm out numbered 4 to 1. The Gaulish campaign is little better, I have one some stupidly ridiculous victories and look set to wipe out the Julii, with my forces besieging their last city. The only units I've used so far are Warbands, , Skirmisher Warband, Swordsmen and Barbarian Cavalry. The Britons arranged trade and map information, then attacked the next year, they are now gone from mainland Europe. The following year they arrived with the offer "please do not attack - accept or we will attack" (????). I cleared that, and countered with my own proposal, managing to secure 20 years of tribute at 200 denarii a time and a ceasefire. Then they went and allied with my worst enemies the Julii, so I proceeded to attack and destroy their last army on the mainland, which was another easy victory despite the enemy being twice my size with better units and some of the fabulous suicide chariots (the ones that are so good at hurling themselves at a phalanx with violent abandon). The diplomacy is extremely poor, the AI is extremely poor, and if diplomacy is poor in M2TW it is just continuing on from the RTW diplomacy.

[econ21]

the diplomacy side is an absolute nightmare which makes the gameplay very restricted.

If you want the diplomacy to work you either (a) have to keep the difficulty level at medium; and/or (b) work on good relations and a good reputation. On higher campaign difficulties, relations with the AI are programmed to worsen over time. So if you want meaningful alliances, good neighbours etc, you have to do something to counter-attack that - typically gifting money. Your reputation will also slide if you do nasty stuff like sack cities or assassinate people; this will also cause your relations to deteriorate. In some of the Citadel threads, you can find examples of people have maintained excellent relations with many factions and a spotless reputation. But most of us casual players just focus on the combat and get total war as a result.

it reminds me of the old command and conquer - build a base and conquer the enemy. next level - build a base and conquer the enemy. ... a very poor showing that should have been released as an add-on at most for no more than £15. will be sticking to RTW and advise others to do the same.

Weird - its far more challenging than RTW in my opinion. Play on VH battles; never sack a city and don't rush the AI - then tell me it is very poor.

theres no ability to use tact or cunning with M2TW AT ALL.

The battles allow for tact and cunning just as much as the earlier titles. I've played three battles in a M2TW PBM and each one allowed me to use different cunning tactics to take a settlement:

The "he's behind you" tactic:

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showp...46&postcount=3

The "ladder feints" tactic:

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showp...4&postcount=12

The "how to take a settlement with no siege engines" tactic:

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showp...9&postcount=21

[caravel]

Hmmm... those are great write ups, but as far as tactics go, I'm not sure they're the sort of "open battle" tactics that I would call "tactics".

If I wanted to get all critical and pedantic ( ) I could call those examples AI exploits, taking advantage of the AI's inability to coordinate it's forces and fight a battle on multiple fronts.

[econ21]

Indeed, and Homer had a good write-up but that Ulysses was just exploiting the weak Trojan AI with that wooden horse thing...

To be pedantic right back at you: I'll wager more tact and cunning went into ancient and medieval sieges than field battles. The siege engineers of the time, from Archimedes onwards, were typically more cerebral than the field commanders. Medieval field battles, particularly, tended to be unimaginative affairs - form up three battle divisions and have at it, sort of thing. With siege assaults, trying to take the enemy by surprise and overwhelm a weak point was critical to avoiding a bloodbath.

More to the point - I've only played 3 battles, all sieges, in that PBM so far but they each gave me pause for thought. I could have just barrelled through a breach or even autoresolved, but to say there is no ability to use tact or cunning is just wrong.

[_Aetius_]

Indeed, and Homer had a good write-up but that Ulysses was just exploiting the weak Trojan AI with that wooden horse thing...

To be pedantic right back at you: I'll wager more tact and cunning went into ancient and medieval sieges than field battles. The siege engineers of the time, from Archimedes onwards, were typically more cerebral than the field commanders. Medieval field battles, particularly, tended to be unimaginative affairs - form up three battle divisions and have at it, sort of thing. With siege assaults, trying to take the enemy by surprise and overwhelm a weak point was critical to avoiding a bloodbath.

I agree with you here, there aren't as many examples as people would think of a battle where one commander won by a stroke of genius over the other, battles were probably as a standard nowhere near as imaginative as Cannae for example. More likely to have been more of a Zama, a long bloodfest, both sides hacking away at the other until one couldnt take it anymore, the inevitable rout claiming more lives than the battle itself.

Sieges were different, it often took ingenuity to seize a well defended city or fortress, a small piece of information, finding the tiniest of access holes the defenders knew nothing of, they could go on for months or even years as both sides tried to outwit the other. Some were decided by storming, but it was often only the last resort as a bloodbath would take place regardless who won.

[Odin]

Hmmm... those are great write ups, but as far as tactics go, I'm not sure they're the sort of "open battle" tactics that I would call "tactics".

If I wanted to get all critical and pedantic ( ) I could call those examples AI exploits, taking advantage of the AI's inability to coordinate it's forces and fight a battle on multiple fronts.

I had a battle with an AI rouge army in wales last night, the AI was the weaker force. While I was getting my units in order and moving to locations I wanted, the AI placed 2 long bow units on a cliff with a spearmen support unit that guarded the only path leading to the commanders mailed nights and 2 more escort spearmen.

I was on very hard, and i took losses but i did win. I had to think tactically in order to win, do I bum rush the general and have his 2 spearmen charge down a slight slope at me? all the while taking fire from ranged units?

Do i take out the archer position? I took out the archer position with the only units i had fast enough to get to them without being chewed up in a hail of arrows. I sent 2 hobilars first and they got chewed up, next were mailed knights. sent 2 units of them and they got the job done, but with 50-60% losses.


Eliminating thier position on the cliff allowed my ranged units unfettered access to the generals position, and even then when the arrows were spent I had to go up a slight slope and rout them out, taking more losses.

So the AI used terrain and set up a decent defensive position, nothing I couldnt handle, but he wasnt running around make foolish charges then feint back which I have seen the AI do in MTWVI many many times.

[caravel]

Indeed, and Homer had a good write-up but that Ulysses was just exploiting the weak Trojan AI with that wooden horse thing...

Totally different. Troy didn't have automatic doors that open for friendly units and allow enemy units to slip in.

To be pedantic right back at you: I'll wager more tact and cunning went into ancient and medieval sieges than field battles. The siege engineers of the time, from Archimedes onwards, were typically more cerebral than the field commanders. Medieval field battles, particularly, tended to be unimaginative affairs - form up three battle divisions and have at it, sort of thing. With siege assaults, trying to take the enemy by surprise and overwhelm a weak point was critical to avoiding a bloodbath.

I wasn't contesting that point. When I said "field" tactics I was referring to tactics that don't involved the exploitation of the AI's inability to coordinate it's forces. Attacking on several fronts and winning because the AI simply ignored some of your men, and allowed them to breach the wall unchallenged are not great tactics to shout about. They're nothing new, they're not evidence of a great improvement in the battle engine either. They are simply a matter of deployment.

More to the point - I've only played 3 battles, all sieges, in that PBM so far but they each gave me pause for thought. I could have just barrelled through a breach or even autoresolved, but to say there is no ability to use tact or cunning is just wrong.

I wasn't saying that there was no ability to use tact or cunning. What I did say was that if I was going to be critical and pedantic I could have called all of your tactics AI exploits. In my opinion they are a bit of both. I feel sure that you fought those battles very well, but concentrated on the feints of the ladders, the back door and sneaking in the front door with the routers. The question is, if that were a multiplayer scenario do you believe you would still get away with it?

Edit: I wasn't being hostile, nor picking an argument either, if it came across like that, or if this post comes across as argumentative, then I apologise.

[Ignoramus]

To be honest, I agree with Cambyses.

To be fair, MTW2 has improved over Rome, yes. But I still find that the only battles I lose are either because of the shield bug(and thus Dismounted Men at Arms getting slaughtered by Peasants) or if I'm hopelessly outnumbered.

I've enjoyed the PBM that econ's in, and fought several battles too. However, none of my victories have been to my skill, rather the AI's lack of it. They allow me to single out their general all too often, which results in an instant rout.

In Rome, I, too, found it uninspiring. Campaigns were a walk-over, and battles were ridiculously biased in cavalry's favour.

[econ21]

Attacking on several fronts and winning because the AI simply ignored some of your men, and allowed them to breach the wall unchallenged are not great tactics to shout about.

Linking is not shouting.

They're nothing new, they're not evidence of a great improvement in the battle engine either.

Did I say they were?

I wasn't saying that there was no ability to use tact or cunning.

Indeed, but I was responding to the poster who said there was no such ability.

[caravel]

Linking is not shouting.

Misunderstanding?

http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/...to+shout+about

Did I say they were?

I didn't say that you did, you've quoted selectively. I was making a side statement that the types of tactics you're using aren't as a direct result of improvements to the battle engine. My main statement was this:

Attacking on several fronts and winning because the AI simply ignored some of your men, and allowed them to breach the wall unchallenged are not great tactics to shout about. They're nothing new...

Indeed, but I was responding to the poster who said there was no such ability.

Basically I think this debate is going nowhere. Perhaps I was too quick to jump on your example and was over critical of it, in reality I cannot comment accurately on M2TW until I've played it, so any of my opinions are from an RTW perspective. Though so far, a lot of the user feedback I'm reading about M2TW is quite off putting. Still, it is an unknown quantity, at present, and like Rome will probably need to be patched a few times before it's decently playable.

[caravel]

I was playing a siege in RTW today and was back into the "head shaking disbelief" mode. Basically I was playing as Gaul and had a tiny garrison of two units, Mercenary Hoplites and Chosen Swordsmen for the record, besieged in the city just to the south of Rome (forgot it's name!). My total number of men was just under 300, the Brutii attacking have 2500 including ballistas. They began lined up (attacking on only one front despite the size of their force) in front of the front gates out of range, with their ballistas shooting repeatedly at the gatehouse... they went on by shooting repeatedly at the gatehouse until the gatehouse was stated to be "100% destroyed" (two crumpled looking towers though apart from that solid as a rock (bug!?) ), they did not shoot at the gate itself which would have actually served the purpose of allowing them easy entry. It was then that the Brutii force with it's 2 battering rams, 2 scaling ladder teams and a siege tower advanced towards the walls. Then they waited in directly front of the walls for their ballistas to start once again firing at a tower for no obvious reason?! All the time their men were getting shot up by this tower. Once it was destroyed they finally advanced the siege equipment to the walls and began to ram the gates. My men were defeated in the square eventually, but the point is that the AI was unbelievably inadequate.

Can anyone say if this has improved in M2TW?? I'm not saying that MTW sieges were anything special because they definitely weren't, but are M2TW sieges noticeably better, and does the scenario above still occur?

[Martok]

Bearing in mind that I don't really recall any specifics at this point (it's been a month or two since I played), my opinion of the AI in Medieval 2 is that while it's somewhat better at assaulting cities than in Rome, it's still not what I would define as truly competent.

There's less aimless milling about of troops and the computer is more decisive in its actions, but it doesn't utilize its artillery that well and sometimes employs units ill-suited to attacking fortifications. (I do remember defending one city where the emeny attempted to storm over the walls with some crossbowmen, even though they had a number of swordsmen and spearmen at their disposal. )

[Caerfanan]

(I do remember defending one city where the emeny attempted to storm over the walls with some crossbowmen, even though they had a number of swordsmen and spearmen at their disposal. )

Well, not the first time I read someone reporting a stupid "charge" with crossbowmen. Could it be that the decision comes from te high defense and armor levels? Making them "falsely" the ones most likely to survive long enough to wait for reinforcements without routing?




Are the crossbowmen a low intelligence and brash unit?

[Martok]

Well, not the first time I read someone reporting a stupid "charge" with crossbowmen. Could it be that the decision comes from te high defense and armor levels? Making them "falsely" the ones most likely to survive long enough to wait for reinforcements without routing?

Now that I think about it, it's entirely possible that crossbowmen are -- for the moment, at least -- the better choice for storming fortifications. Due to the well-known shield bug, many swordsmen and spearmen in Medieval 2 suffer penalties to their melee abilities, and it's entirely possible that units (such as x-bows) without shields are actually superior to them at the moment. The problem is that the AI isn't aware of the shield bug, and should therefore still be selecting medium/heavy infantry over missile troops when assaulting cities/castles.

EDIT: In fairness, however, I should add that I only defended a couple of siege battles; so the enemy using crossbows for taking the walls may have only been an anomaly.